Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10114261
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Ronald Tolentino v. Gillig, LLC
No. 10114261 · Decided September 11, 2024
No. 10114261·Ninth Circuit · 2024·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
September 11, 2024
Citation
No. 10114261
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD TOLENTINO, No. 23-16182
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:23-cv-02062-VC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GILLIG, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 9, 2024**
San Francisco, California
Before: BEA and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and M. FITZGERALD,*** District
Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Ronald Tolentino, on behalf of himself and a putative
class, appeals an order of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, United States District Judge
for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
California that granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Tolentino’s
former employer, Defendant-Appellee Gillig, LLC (“Gillig”).
The parties are familiar with the facts, so we recount them only as necessary.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
“We review de novo a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(c) motion for
judgment on the pleadings.” See Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131
(9th Cir. 2012). “A judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all
the allegations in the non-moving party’s pleadings as true, the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fajardo v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 179 F.3d
698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999).
The district court properly granted Gillig’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings because Tolentino’s claim (for unpaid hours worked before his scheduled
starting time) was subject to dismissal based on his failure to exhaust the mandatory
grievance and arbitration procedures set forth in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (“CBA”) that governed the terms and conditions of his employment. See
United Paperworkers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 37 (1987)
(“The courts have jurisdiction to enforce collective-bargaining contracts; but where
the contract provides grievance and arbitration procedures, those procedures must
first be exhausted and courts must order resort to the private settlement mechanisms
without dealing with the merits of the dispute.”).
2
The CBA requires that an “aggrieved employee” follow certain procedures
for “disputes or grievances which may arise concerning [the CBA’s] application or
enforcement.”
Tolentino’s claim for unpaid hours worked was subject to the CBA’s
mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures because it was a claim for overtime,
defined in Section 4.5 of the CBA as “[w]ork performed before the regular starting
time or after the regular quitting time.”
Tolentino argues that his claim was not for overtime because Section 4.5’s
phrase “regular starting time” means not the time at which an employee is scheduled
to start his shift, but the time at which he “repeatedly and customarily begins work.”
This argument is meritless. As the district court noted, Tolentino’s interpretation
“defies reason” because it would allow an employee to define his own “regular
starting time” based on when he chooses to arrive at work and clock in. This would
allow each employee to rack up as much overtime as he wants, regardless the work
hours Gillig requires of its employees, and would make it nearly impossible for
Gillig to track accurately its employees’ overtime. For these reasons, Tolentino’s
claim is subject to the CBA’s mandatory grievance procedures.
It is undisputed that Tolentino failed to allege that he exhausted the CBA’s
mandatory grievance procedures (or was prevented from doing so). Hence,
Tolentino’s claim was subject to dismissal. See Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l
3
Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 1041 (9th Cir. 2016).
AFFIRMED.
4
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2024 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD TOLENTINO, No.
03Plaintiff-Appellant Ronald Tolentino, on behalf of himself and a putative class, appeals an order of the U.S.
04District Court for the Northern District of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Ronald Tolentino v. Gillig, LLC in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on September 11, 2024.
Use the citation No. 10114261 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.